A Case Study of the Willapa Bay Oyster Bed Spraying Permit of 2015
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Public Perceptions and Pesticides – A Case Study of the Willapa Bay Oyster Bed Spraying Permit of 2015 Ian L. Baker A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Marine Affairs University of Washington 2016 Committee: Edward H. Allison, Chair Marc L. Miller Program Authorized to Offer Degree: School of Marine and Environmental Affairs ©Copyright 2016 Ian L. Baker University of Washington Abstract Aquaculture has been identified as a way to meet increasing global seafood demands while wild-catch fishery production has been stagnant in recent years. In the United States, it may also be seen as a tool to balance the country’s $11billion seafood trade deficit and continue to supply low-cost nutritious food choices. However, consumer concern for farmed seafood and environmental impacts has challenged traditional aquaculture practices and public support of its efforts. To better understand these concerns, this study analyzes the events and media surrounding one particular event that put the aquaculture industry in the spotlight. This incident was the 2015 application by local oyster growers to spray a new pesticide, the neurotoxin imidacloprid, on oyster beds in Willapa Bay, WA to control the populations of burrowing shrimp (Neotrypaea californiensis and Upogebia pugettensis) threatening the viability of their oyster farms. Elite interviews were used along with public comment and media coverage to identify the concerns of those supportive of and opposed to the issuance of the permit. Claims regarding the uncertainty of findings and historical disturbances of the bay were then analyzed with evidence from scientific literature as a way to support or refute their validity. Those opposing the permit were particularly concerned for non-target impacts, especially to salmon, which may not have been properly tested. Oyster growers and other supporters of the permit stress the need to control shrimp populations and cite human interference as a cause for the expanding shrimp populations. Six years of testing have been previously conducted on the efficacy and impacts of imidacloprid as a pesticide and studies continue today. These studies illustrated that there was no confirmed risk of wider environmental damage, but that areas of uncertainty remained. Interviews conducted for this study demonstrate that concerns over these uncertainties still remain and shape the public opinion. This study finds that there is a distinct difference between the risk perceptions of the general public and those of the industry and administrative bodies. Objections to this spraying permit closely reflect global objections to aquaculture practices and demonstrate a disconnect between what is required by permit and what is deemed acceptable by some sub-sections the public in terms of environmental uncertainty and risk. Public Perceptions and Pesticides: A Case Study of the Willapa Bay Oyster Bed Spraying Permit of 2015 Ian L. Baker Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Edward H. Allison School of Marine and Environmental Affairs Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1-7 Methods………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...............................8-10 Oyster Farming in Willapa Bay and its Challenges.…………………………………………………………………………. 11-17 Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18-24 Impacts of Damming the Columbia River…………….……………………………………………………………………….18 Uncertainty in Science……………..…………………………………………………………………………………….……………21 Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………25-27 Introduction Americans have been told in recent years that their diets are not healthy enough. We eat too much high-fat protein while neglecting important micronutrients. “Eat more seafood,” say nutritionists and food media, it’s full of what you need with relatively low fat content. At the same time we face evidence that there is such a thing as eating more fish than is good for you. Studies and news articles are published regularly about the dangers of high mercury content in some fish. The USA already faces a yearly $11billion trade deficit in seafood (NOAA Fisheries n.d.), importing much more than we export and not meeting demands domestically. Our fisheries are producing at maximum sustainable yield, meaning it is not likely that we can produce more from our wild stocks. Aquaculture, or fish farming, has been a rapidly growing way to produce more seafood, but its growth has been relatively stagnant in the USA. I contend this is due in a large part to consumer perceptions of aquaculture negatively impacting demand. Prior studies by Mazur and Curtis (2006), Verbeke (2007), and others have demonstrated clearly that serious concerns about farmed seafood exist both in informed and uninformed consumers which may lead them to avoid these products. This thesis explores some of the issues facing the continued production and growth of farmed seafood in the United States. Consumer perceptions of these products and the practices themselves appear to be generally negative, while also being minimally informed. To examine these issues I studied media coverage, production statistics, and perception surveys and conducted interviews with key actors about the Pacific West Coast’s oyster aquaculture sector. The scope of this thesis covers a recent controversy in Willapa Bay, 1 Washington in which a pesticide, the neonicotinoid imidacloprid, was proposed as a control method against two species of burrowing shrimp (Neotrypaea californiensis and Upogebia pugettensis). These native shrimp threatened the production of oysters in the bay by liquefying sea beds, causing oysters to sink and suffocate. Oyster growers in the area claimed their businesses would collapse if the shrimp infestation could not be controlled. Opposition to the use of this pesticide was concerned with environmental impacts to the bay and used media and consumer pressure to force the spraying permit’s cancelation. Such heavy expectations for environmental protection and the quality of products have created a difficult market for aquaculture to grow in the United States. However, other less-regulated regions have seen significant growth in aquaculture production in recent years. The health benefits of eating seafood are now becoming a set of well-documented and public facts. Major media outlets in recent years have been publishing articles centered on advice for how to increase seafood consumption and why it is important. Women’s Health (Ansel 2011) published a piece titled Eat More Seafood which emphasized seafood, both fish and shellfish, as being a good source of micronutrients like omega-3, vitamins B and D, and providing protein with very low fat content. It specifically mentions farmed fish, calling it less flavorful than wild fish, but also raised in a pollutant-free environment. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF 2016) has created a public information webpage echoing the idea that seafood has a high nutritional value while elaborating on what these benefits could mean for an individual including more seafood into their diet. The main benefit being a reduced risk of heart disease. The New York Times piece, Lots of Reasons to Eat Fish, (Brody 2014) brings up the 2 same nutritional benefits while trying to address everyday concerns about buying seafood such as what to buy and how to prepare it. These media articles are supported by nutritional studies conducted in the past 15 years. An earlier study by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA 2000) showed that the general public understands they have a poor diet, but only 23% of them have any interest in improving it. Studies like this may have started the dietary research and reporting that has led to the modern promotion of increased seafood intake. Since then, the USDA has published multiple Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The 2010 publication (USDA 2010) advises Americans to eat about 8 ounces of seafood per week, up from the (then) average rate of about 3.5 ounces per week. Since then, the 2015 (USDA 2015) publication has been released. It seems that adult intake of seafood has increased to roughly 4 ounces per week, but the USDA still advises increasing seafood consumption. Works by Ruxton et al. (2004) and McManus (2011) of the Centre of Excellence Science Seafood Health, along with others, help to support the nutritional claims made by organizations promoting an increased intake of seafood. At the same time, people are being warned to not eat too much seafood (Harvard n.d.). Fish in the wild tend to accumulate contaminants that can be harmful to humans if ingested too often. Storelli (2008) examined the concentrations of heavy metals such as mercury, cadmium, and lead in wild seafood from the Mediterranean Sea. Levels of each contaminant varied by species and habitat which suggested bioaccumulation and the ingestion of environmental contaminants. Concern for human health was mentioned in closing, but was not the main focus of this paper. Another study by Han et al. (1998) made similar findings for seafood consumed in 3 Taiwan with the addition of finding trace portions of inorganic arsenic, which causes cancer in humans. Wild supplies of fish appear unable to keep up with increasing global demands. The UN estimated the world population to be 6.1 billion in year 2000, but is expected to grow to 8.9 billion by 2050 (UN 2004). From the 1960s to 2012, global per capita seafood consumption has risen from 9.9 kg to 19.2 kg per year (FAO